Robert Sciarrino/The Star-LedgerN.J. Supreme Court Justice Helen Hoens was one of two dissenters who felt the court should not wade into the territory of the executive and legislative branches in the Abbott vs. Burke case.

TRENTON — For months, Gov. Chris Christie and Republicans in the Legislature questioned whether the Supreme Court has the right to order school funding.

As it turns out, the court asked the same question of itself.

In one of the more controversial cases in the history of school financing in New Jersey, two justices said in a dissenting opinion that the state’s highest court does not have the right to tell the state to come up with an additional $500 million for the poorest school districts.

But legal experts said in interviews that the court was well within its authority to tackle the school funding issue.

The 3-2 decision handed down today doesn’t create a new law or legal standard, but it does shine a harsh light on Christie’s very public attack on what he considers to be an activist court, they said.

"What the court is doing is enforcing a constitutional right to a thorough and efficient education," said Mark Alexander, a professor at Seton Hall law school. "It is a responsibility of the court to enforce and protect the rights of the individual. This is what courts do. They’re supposed to stand up for the rights of the individual."

Justices Helen Hoens and Roberto Rivera-Soto were the two dissenters. Hoens said the court should not wade into the territory of the executive and legislative branches. Rivera-Soto said the court — with two justices having recused themselves and a third filling a temporary vacancy — strayed from its long tradition of requiring four votes as a majority in controversial cases.

But Frank Askin, a professor at Rutgers law school, said as long as five justices voted, the decision was legal even though Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justice Virginia Long did not take part.

"They have a quorum," Askin said. "That’s all they need."

Robert Williams, a state Supreme Court professor at Rutgers University, said the dissenting votes are consistent with positions taken by Hoens and Rivera-Soto two years ago that left school financing up to the governor at the time, Jon Corzine, and the Legislature.

"That was the nature of their dissent — that they ought to defer to the governor and the Legislature,’’ Williams said.

As for Christie, today’s decision further solidified his resolve to reconfigure the Supreme Court into a body more consistent with his views.

"There are several reasons why I believe this decision represents everything that’s wrong with how Trenton has historically operated and everything that I am here fighting to change," Christie said at a news conference at the Statehouse after the decision was announced.

As currently configured, four Democrats currently sit on the seven-member court. By next March, Christie will most likely have named three new members, including two nominees to fill the seats of Long, who reaches the mandatory retirement age of 70 in March, and former Justice John Wallace Jr., whom the governor declined to reappoint last year.

View full size

In addition, Rivera-Soto, a Republican, has announced he is not seeking reappointment when his term ends in September.

Alexander said this will test whether Christie will honor the court’s long tradition of appointing justices who are of the same party as the departing justices. If he doesn’t stick with that tradition, Christie could tip the balance in favor of Republicans.

"He has the opportunity now to put forward nominations for people he thinks will interpret the law and the constitution in a way he thinks is appropriate," Alexander said. "That’s his right. You win, you get the powers."

Paul Trachtenberg, a law professor at Rutgers, said that doesn’t necessarily mean that the votes of Republican appointees will be consistent with Christie’s views.

Nor does that mean Christie will not be able to find Democrats who share his view about the court, he added.